In this paper, the Russian-American relations in the Putin period, especially in the light of the 11 September terrorist attacks on the USA would be analyzed. In this sense, the main economic, political and strategic parameters of this relationship would be given together with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy understanding as well as the place of Russia in the American foreign policy understanding.

My argument is that Russian and American relations improved in a very positive way since 9/11 in terms of political and military cooperation, however Russia could not get what it desired in terms of especially economical and security sphere from the USA.

Keywords: 11 September, NATO, WTO, Putin, Axis of Evil, Strategic Partnership, Central Asia, CIS, cooperation, pragmatism, WMD, Bush-Putin Summit, Greater Middle Eastern Initiative.

Content

A)  Introduction And Historical Background

B)  The Main Parameters Of Putin’s Foreign Policy Understanding

C)  The Importance Of Russia To The Usa

D)  Russian-American Relations After 11 September

Cooperation Against International Terrorism

Russia’s Relations With The Countries Of “Axis Of Evil”, Namely Iraq, Iran And North Korea

Relations Under “Nato-Russia”

American And Russian Relations With “Cis”

Nuclear Technology

Bush-Putin Summits And Their Results

Greater Middle Eastern Initiative And Russia

Economic Relations

E)  Conclusion

F)  References

A)  Introduction And Historical Background:

The Cold War came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. There were no more two enemy blocs and a bipolar world. However of course the legacy of the Cold War politics did not eradicate in one day.

After the end of the Cold War, the whole energy was directed towards the reconstruction of the Russia in all senses. Starting from 1992, the first president of the Russian Federation-Boris Yeltsin tried to liberalize the economy with “shock reforms” and they sought the help of the Western world, but especially USA, through this reform process. In 1994, Russia understood that Russian reform was not a priority of USA and they admitted that they were no more a “superpower”.

By the year 1996, the policy change of Russia towards the USA was reflected on the change of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Andrev Kozyrev, who was an Atlanticist and who was accepting any demand from the Western world without questioning was replaced by a Eurasionist Minister of Foreign Affairs: Eugenii Primakov. Primakov was supporting a “multi-polar world” against the unilateralism of the USA.

The tense relations between two countries increased with the Russian use of force in Chechnya in unproportional amounts and with the competition between the USA and Russian Federation in the “near abroad” of Russia. Moreover, Russia did not like the idea of “NATO Enlargement” in those years. There was competition between Russia and USA rather than cooperation. In the Kosovo event of 1999, when Yugoslavia of that time was bombed by NATO forces, Russia was totally neglected and it was kept out of this process. These were all legacies of the Cold War politics (Soltan,2001,pp.6-7).

However relations changed drastically when Vladimir Putin came to power by 26.March.2000 elections.

A)  The Main Parameters Of Putin’s Foreign Policy Understanding

As being a former KGB member in East Germany, Putin was an expert of Western politics and Western world. On 16.August.1999, he became the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation by 233 “yes” votes in the Duma and by 2000 he became the new President of the Russian Federation (Tepe,2002,pp.115-116). According to Tanrısever (2000,p.277) “Russian presidential elections resulted in a negative political atmosphere for the development of Russian democracy” since there were certain suspicions about to what extent Putin came to power through democratic ways.

Putin came to power with %74 public support and he gave importance to national interests of his country. Some analysts characterized his foreign policy understanding as a combination of liberalism and realism. He was supporting the liberal and democratic reform process in his country, giving support to cooperation with the West and some Western institutions on the one hand, on the other hand he was moving after the “national interests” of his country and he was realist as well as pragmatist in this sense.

After he came to power, he started a huge reform process in the political, economic as well as the military arena. Even though he came to power with statements against NATO expansion and supporting a multi-polar world against the US hegemony, Putin’s foreign policy understanding was characterized by pragmatism and pro-Western tendencies, especially after the 11 September events. Putin was the first leader that called the US President George W. Bush after 9/11 attacks and granted full support to the USA in its fight against international terrorism.

“Putin did face political and institutional opposition to his overtly pro-American stance, but this was never either serious or influential enough to deflect him from what was the only practical course of action” (Lo,2003,p.119). The details of this policy change will be analyzed in the following sections.

B)  The Importance Of Russia To The Usa

Especially after the 9/11 attacks, Russia became more crucial in strategic terms to the USA. First of all, in the current crisis situation in the Middle East, Russian energy resources may be seen as an alternative to Middle Eastern energy resources to the USA.

Secondly, Russia has an important and strategic location in terms of the radical Islamist regimes and terrorist organizations, especially in the Middle East and Central Asia and the American cooperation with Russia against these radical groups and regimes is more than a necessity.

As a third issue, Russia is still a big nuclear power which can cause a threat to the security of the USA. According to 2001 data, Russia has 900.000 tones of equipment that it can make 33.000 nuclear weapons with. Moreover Russia has a stock of 40.000 tones of biological weapons in hand (Associated Press, 13.November.2001 in Soltan, 2001, p.8).

Last, but not least Russia’s relations with the so-called countries of “Axis of Evil”, namely North Korea, Iraq and Iran have a great importance to the USA, which will be analyzed in the following section.

Of course, the domestic developments in the Russian Federation are also concerns of the USA, like the economic developments and the democratization process.

As stated by A. Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs of the US Department of State (2004):

The American public has long nurtured a special interest in Russia’s domestic development. This is in part because so many American citizens trace their origins to that part of the world, in part because of the heightened focus on the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and also because of the enormous hopes we invested in Russia after the fall of Communism. Americans are genuinely interested in the fate of human rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech, assembly and religion and democracy in Russia. It is in our interest, but most of all in the interest of Russia’s own citizens, to see political reforms take root. Yet it is precisely in this sensitive and important area that we have seen some erosion.

In particular, the pattern of official pressure on journalists and the independent broadcast media, irregularities in the Duma elections as noted by the OSCE, missed opportunities from last year’s referendum and presidential election in Chechnya, and the arrest and lengthy pre-trial detention of Mikhail Khodorkovskiy have raised questions about the strength and depth of Russia’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law. Reports of violence and human rights abuses in Chechnya continue to appear, despite the virtual news blackout from that unhappy, war-torn province. And there has been a continuing stream of reports of unsolved crimes of violence, from terrorism to assassination and crimes against foreigners, often not pursued with sufficient vigor by the investigative organs and law enforcement authorities. All of these factors give us pause.

In fact, the basic goal of US President George W.Bush is to have a stable and allied Russia within the Western fold (USA Today, 2002, May 23) and it can be argued that he is quite successful in this goal.

C)  Russian-American Relations After 11 September

Western views of 11 September and its implications tend to divide into two schools of thought in general. The first, popular in USA and UK, argues that the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were transforming events, not just for America, but for the entire planet. There exists now a new chance of cooperative security and economic partnership.

The alternative approach, especially popular in the non-Anglo-Saxon world, argues that far from international politics becoming more inclusive and integrated, the 11 September events have pushed the United States to act in ever more hegemonistic and unilateral fashion. (Lo,2003, p.115)

I agree that the 11 September terrorist attacks on the USA have paved the way for a new possible strategic realignment of Russia with the West and especially with the USA. For the first time since the Second World War, Russia, USA and Europe are working together against the international terrorism in line with their vital interests. Russia was not only important for the war on Afghanistan for a variety of geographic and historical reasons, but also Russia is crucial for some longer term interests, like “targeting terrorist money flows, identifying and eliminating al-Qaeda cells throughout the world, addressing proliferation of weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) materials and technologies and finding effective responses to bio-terrorist threats.” (Antonenko, 2001-2, pp.50-51 ).

Moreover in Russia there are also two categories of approaches towards 11 September. On the one hand, there is the official view that coincides closely with that of Washington and London. On the other hand, “a sizeable portion of the Moscow political establishment maintains that 11 September has been more damaging than beneficial to Russian foreign policy interests” (Lo, 2003, p.116).

The Russian-American relations after 9/11 can be analyzed under certain sub-categories, such as their cooperation against international terrorism, Russia’s relations with the so-called countries of “Axis of Evil”: Iraq, Iran and North Korea, US-Russian relations under NATO, US-Russian relations with Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and in Central Asia as well as Caucasia and their economic as well as military relations, especially in terms of nuclear technology and arms control.

I would like to analyze these under sub-categories for a matter of simplicity as in the following.

 *Cooperation Against International Terrorism:

As it was stated above, after 9/11 Russia granted full support to the USA in its fight against international terrorism. After these attacks, Putin granted an aid-package to the USA, which was consisting of :

·  opening the Russian airspace for the American planes supplying humanitarian assistance

·  information cooperation on Afghanistan

·  military assistance to the Northern Alliance

·  taking place in the search-and-rescue operations in Afghanistan

·  helping the cooperation of the Central Asian states with the USA (Soltan,2001,pp.9-10).

According to Soltan (2001, p.15) Putin was sure about the “winner” of the war and he wanted to be on the same side with the winner. Moreover Putin was aware of the fact that 9/11 would result in a new order both in the Europe and in terms of the American national interests and it wanted to benefit from these opportunities that this new world order presented. Therefore Putin, in line with his pragmatist foreign policy understanding, supported USA in its war in Afghanistan against international terrorism.

As also stated in Bobo Lo(2003,p.118), “Putin’s decision represented a victory for pragmatism over a stereotyped and anachronistic strategic mindset” and he decided that Russian interests were best served by an open and consistent cooperation with America.

Russia is also a target country of international terrorism. This can be a reason why it understands the USA most and cooperates with the USA against international terrorism.

According to Antonenko(2001-2,pp.51-52), one of the reasons behind Russian support was their wish that West would tone down their criticism against Russia’s military campaign in Chechnya. Also they were suspicious of an al-Qeada linkage with the terrorist bombings that took place in Moscow in August 1999. However even though USA admitted a terrorist existence in Chechnya, it did not offer concrete assistance or cooperation to Russia in Chechnya. In any sense, after America’s admitting the linkage between Chechen fighters and international terrorism, Russia and America were on the same sight against the “common enemy” (Soltan, 2001, p.10).

In the aftermath of 3 September terrorist events in Beslan, Northern Osetya however Russia could not get the support that it wanted from the West. As it was stated in the Economist (2004, September 25), “Addressing the nation after the Beslan massacre, President Vladimir Putin conjured up a spectre of manipulative foreign powers exploiting terrorism to weaken Russia. Several Europeans and Americans have since criticised Mr Putin over Chechnya, and over his grab for more power. Mr Putin's fraternal response to September 11th had persuaded optimists that the dream of bringing Russia closer to the West might be realised. In the past two weeks, it has looked as chimerical as ever” and it was argued that Russian-Western relations deteriorated after the Beslan tragedy.

In effect, Putin wanted '9/3' to be seen as Russia's 9/11.But as stated in the Economist (2004, September 11) “that (was) disingenuous, and may even be dangerous. The verified links between Chechen terrorists and al-Qaeda (were) few and tenuous”.

*Russia’s Relations With The Countries Of “Axis Of Evil”, Namely Iraq, Iran And N. Korea:

When talking about US-Russian relations, one could take into consideration Russian relations with the so-called “Axis of Evil” countries that President George W. Bush declared as countries of threat to international peace and security after 9/11, namely Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

In terms of North Korea, Russia had cooperation with North Korea in the areas of energy and transportation through which North Korea could be integrated into the international society. Russia sees North Korea as an “unbalanced neighbor” rather than as a “threat”.

In fact neither USA, nor Russia or China supports nuclear proliferation of North Korea, but they couldn’t prevent it as well (Economist, 2003, September 6).

On the other hand, Putin pursues a pragmatist policy that has alternatives towards Iraq case. In terms of the American intervention to Iraq Russia did not accept the intervention at first. However than it had accepted with some differing views from the USA in terms of the post-intervention period. In the post-intervention era, Russia wants to get its “lion share” from the sharing plan as being an important regional actor in the Middle East.

Russia’s rapprochement with Iraq and other Middle Eastern counties is not a new phenomenon. Since 1990s, Russia made important investments to the energy sector of Iraq. On the other hand Russia can use its prestige in Iran and in the Arab world in two important ways. First of all, this can balance the American power in the Middle East and secondly, Russia can supply armaments to the Arab world.

Lastly, we look at the Iranian case, Iran’s rapprochement with the Arab world and Russia is not approved or liked by the USA. Moreover the cooperation between Russia and Iran in the area of nuclear energy is not something that USA approves or wants.

On the other hand both Russia and the USA sees radical Islamists groups in Iran or in other Middle Eastern countries as a threat, but their strategic approaches towards this threat are different in the sense that Russia perceives them as “internal” security threats and did not perceive the countries as a threat, but the groups. However America perceives these groups as well as these states as “external” threats to its security. (Ogan,2002 September)

*Relations Under “Nato-Russia”:

Russia perceived NATO as an organization that reminds Cold War and enlargement of NATO as a threat to themselves. Especially Russia discredited NATO in its intervention in Kosovo by 1999. Of course Russia-NATO relations were going on since 1994 under the framework of “Partnership for Peace” agreement and since 1997 under Permanent Council of NATO with a “19+1” formula which then became “26+1”. Moreover since 2002 Russia-NATO Council is functioning. However they were all symbolic efforts and Russia still did not have a place in the decision-making process. Nevertheless Russia’s inclusion into NATO, at least in the military or political wing of NATO, was discussed. (Soltan, 2001, pp.17-18)

As it was understood in the last NATO Summit, which was held in İstanbul in 28-29.June.2004, that Russia and NATO has still problems in terms of Russia’s disapproval about the inclusion of the former Soviet republics into NATO (the last enlargement took place in March 2004) and Russia’s military bases. Russia sees the NATO enlargement as a threat to its national security on the one hand and NATO is insistent on the withdrawal of Russian military bases in Moldova and Georgia (Ogan, 2004, pp.43-50).

As a result, these factors have a negative effect in US-Russian strategic relations in general (Rubinstein, 2003, p.97), since America is the leading power inside NATO and in the near future a Russian membership inside NATO does not seem probable.

*American And Russian Relations With Cis (Commonwealth Of Independent States):

By the year 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was formed which is composed of 12 former Soviet states. Dealing with these states was always troublesome for the Soviet Union.

As Russia gave full support to the USA in its fight against international terrorism, it wanted from the Western world to decrease their support to the GUUAM, which is composed of some of the CIS.

Like the USA settled in the Gulf Region after the first Iraq War of 1990-91, now the USA settled in the Central Asia after the war on Afghanistan. In the Middle East in line with the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” between Russia and USA, there seems to be cooperation rather than competition among Russia and USA. However America’s having new military bases in the Middle East is against the Russian interests. On the other hand, some Central Asian countries see the American military bases as the guarantee of security in the region.

On the other hand, Turkey, besides the USA has been fulfilling some of the military bases that Russia has left in Georgia. This weakens the power of Russia in Caucasia (Ogan, 2002 September, January).

An alternative view is that if America is insistent on the settlement issue in Central Asia, then Putin will again take the control of the Central Asian republics, which are still dependent on Russia in terms of economy and security (Soltan, 2001, p.16).

US view regarding this issue is stated by A. Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs in the US Department of State (2004):

The United States recognizes that Russia has legitimate interests in Eurasia based on geography, economics and history. We support good relations between Russia and its neighbors, and we have no desire to compete with Russia in a modern version of the “Great Game.” Indeed, we hope to find ways to cooperate in addressing some of the problems of the region. But we also look to Russia to respect the sovereignty and independence of the other former Soviet states.

Secretary Powell, while emphasizing that we favor deepening our partnership with Russia, raised these concerns with Russian leaders at the end of January. He emphasized that our preference was to cooperate, not to compete, with Russia in the former Soviet space. Our policies and programs in Eurasia aim to promote economic, political and military reform, to encourage the development of democracy, and civil society, and to help the people of the region become prosperous and stable partners. This is a goal, we believe, that is as much in Russia’s interest as it is in ours.

*Nuclear Technology:

Russia’s relations with the USA became tense when USA declared unilateral withdrawal from 1972 ABM Treaty and opened the way for the building of a Missile Defense Shield (Economist, 2002, June 13). In fact, USA dreamed of a shield above their nation to protect it from ballistic missiles for many years. It was shaped by ex-President of USA Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” speech (Economist ,2003, December 6). Now this dream is ever closer.

In May 2002, the heads of Russia and USA signed a treaty that aims to reduce nuclear-heads in a 3/2 proportion (about 2000). In this way, Russia could tolerate the Missile Defense Shield project of USA more.

With the end of the Cold War, the possibility of a nuclear war threat has also been diminished, but still in the security issues one could take the worst-possible scenario into account and in this sense reduction of Russia’s nuclear armament would mean a threat to its security especially with the reality of an enlarging NATO. On the other hand Russia’s military and nuclear capability is the only way that Russia can feel strong about at the global level (Soltan, 2001, pp.11-14). Through Putin’s declaration about their nuclear strength and some “secret” armament just one or two months ago, Russia wanted to give the message that they are still strong and an important actor at least at the regional level.

*Bush-Putin Summits And Their Results:

Bush and Putin come together regularly through bilateral summits. For instance, in 2002 there were 2 important Bush-Putin Summits, one in May 2002 and the other in November 2002. Even though there are many summits, I would like to analyze these two summits of 2002 which are most decisive for this study.

In May 2002 Bush-Putin Summit, as a summary Russia understood that it had to make a policy change towards USA and in this Summit Russia realized the asymmetrical relation that it had with the USA in the sense that its losses were far greater than its gains through this relationship (Ogan, 2002 September). Therefore it started a new regional policy which was outlined in the former sections. Moreover in this summit the message of a “New Strategic Partnership” between Russia and USA was given which covered economic, political cooperation as well as the fight against international terrorism and WMD (Joint Presidential Declaration, 2002, May 24).

In the November 2002 Bush-Putin Summit, they published joint declarations in 6 topics and they promised reduction on nuclear-heads. These declarations consisted of:

·  Studies among European states to incorporate Russia into NATO.

·  Formation of a new government in Afghanistan that is respectful to the rule of law and multi-ethnic.

·  Russia’s membership into the WTO.

·  Cooperation in the area of bio-terrorism.

·  Cooperation in the Palestinian issue to start bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

·  Cooperation against international terrorism and drug trafficking.

*Greater Middle Eastern Initiative And Russia:

As it is known, USA launched the “Greater Middle Eastern and North Africa Initiative” in the G-8 Summit in Sea Island by June 2004, which aims the building of democracy and good governance; building an information society and increasing the economic opportunities in this geography.

In terms of Russia’s stance towards this project, Russia would not like a strong US presence in its interest-zones, such as Caucasia or Central Asia. However Russia can support th